Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Thank you. I just couldn't think of one that fell in that category.

I think when we talked about this before, you did have examples. Yes. Can you please share that again? Yes. Because I don't see it on any of these slides. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, we heard a bridge version today.

Thank you for this sobering reality again. This question is a historical question. Given the millions of dollars we're projecting, it seems a little unfair to ask this question, but I am curious, historically, what's the most that we have been able to partner with the business community to create a public-private partnership to maybe help fill some of these So historically what has happened and what's the what do you all think is the prospect of us leaning into that to close some of these?

Thank you for reinforcing that this is a direct result of decisions made at the General Assembly, and that's where the real solution lies.

Thank you. Thank you for the answer, David. I think that as we've been having conversations with the NCACC about property tax and cuts to revenue for all counties, one of the things we've talked about is the business community and their advocacy. We've also talked about folks that are impacted like the Sheriff's Association and the School Board Association and the League of Municipalities. And so I think that it's important that everyone advocate together because it's going to affect all of us. But my question is when we look at these things, what does the timeline look like? I'm thinking abou

I appreciate that. I think that when I look at the potential criteria to evaluate programs, I think that they're all important, of course, and I think about operational feasibility, right? And so when we start talking about that and when the team starts talking about that, I think it's important for us to be able to have a conversation so that we understand and you don't have one commissioner or two commissioners that are advocating for something that is not operationally feasible with these budget cuts. And when we talk about the impact on vulnerable populations, we are going to have to make

Thank you for all of this information. It certainly is sobering. Could you go back to the traditional approaches slide? And it is noted that these will not be sufficient, but could you speak to where we are in implementing any of these four if we are currently?

My question is trying to reconcile two numbers that's in the presentation. The first number is in the very beginning, the major General Assembly policy impacts. that shows, I'm just gonna round, 25 million potential impact. Obviously, there's no number on the property tax limits. We don't know if that'll be don't raise anything, or we don't know what that will be. But can you help me understand the roughly 25 million on this slide, and then later on the FY20, budget development slide. Yeah, exactly. With the same numbers, exactly, 35 to 100. Can you share about the difference and how we got th

Okay, so I'm hearing the two policy impacts, putting money back in the general fund and... For ongoing costs, yes. And ongoing natural projections is how we've come to 35 to 100, okay. Yes.

Right, I was just gonna follow up on some comments that have already been made. First of all, just to emphasize what you started off with, Michelle, and I think what we all know, but we just need to keep naming it, that these economic challenges are because of policy choices. They're because of policy choices at the state and federal level. So it doesn't have to be this way, number one, but it is for the time being. David, to follow up with what Commissioner Thomas was talking about, sort of that joint advocacy from, you know, NCACC, the League, the Sheriff's Association. Did you say that work

Do you think that would make any difference? And then who would lead that effort? Or just thoughts there?

Mr. Thomas, is that what you're hearing too from the leadership of NCHCC?

I was gonna say that that is correct. Some people are more aggressive with their advocacy than other organizations but the ncacc is trying to take a lead in making sure that everyone understands especially because they formed the property tax committee and so just making sure everyone's informed on what's being talked about there and when i say everyone i mean the other associations executive directors and executive boards And so there can be a coordinated effort after the election to mitigate whatever the impact of those constitutional amendments are and make some recommendations from the She

And then lastly, Michelle, just to try to itemize the biggest hits to the budget, assuming, and you correct me if I'm wrong, we still have the challenges with operating expenses with the public schools unless the General Assembly changes. We have sales tax losses because of the H.R. 1 and SNAP and potentially Medicaid, the Blue Ridge loophole. Did the detention facility cost factor into that as well?

Asking sort of the priority of the biggest hits to the budget, really, from a numbers perspective.

I just wanted to circle back to my earlier question. I know this conversation is centering the FY 2028 budget development, but in response to Manager Ellis's comments around the hiring freeze could potentially happen. What are triggers that you are kind of looking at to see before this FY2028 cycle comes in that may cause you to start looking at some of these measures? Are there triggers that you are keeping your eye on, monitoring? What does that look like?

And any of the others on the list is that, I'm guessing this list is not in priority order in terms of where you would look to make any changes in the meantime.

Thank you. I know that sometimes, as you said, the current state of affairs can cause changes to happen more quickly, and I know that folks are always attuned to concerns about employment, and I appreciate that update.

I was just going to state something I'm thinking and then let you tell me if I'm thinking correctly. You know, we're talking about, you know, where might we cut because we might have to cut. I'm talking about staffing and all these different things and I think the other piece that we have to keep reminding ourselves, like you said earlier, we're not in a recessionary mode. We still have growth. We still have just as many people moving to the county that expect these services. So if anything, we need to be expanding services. And so it's a combination of, you know, it's not just cutting. It's l

Three questions here. Can you go back, it's similar to Commissioner Evans, to the high, medium, low expenditure slide. Can you, and I know I've seen this before, we've seen this before, but can you share again the assumptions that are built into the low, medium, and high expenditures? Yes.

Yeah, and I recognize we are starting this conversation and as Commissioner Thomas and we've discussed, we will get into the nuances here. These are just some of the initial thoughts. When we come back to this slide in future conversations, it would be good to see some of the granular differences between low, medium, and high. At this level, it's pretty much trending, obviously trending in the same direction, but very little distinction. I would be curious to know, see the numbers in between, like the more difference between.

And also what the numbers are for the yellow, green, and blue. Because they all look roughly about... We're in the billions, right? Yes. 2.4, 2.5, basically half a billion.

But the biggest takeaway is how far away all three of them are from the green line. Oh, yes. Yes. Touche.

And then the other question, on discretionary county services, if we're looking at that kind of, what we just looked at, the gap that we need to close, when we come back to this conversation, I would like to know what percent, or maybe we have this, what percent of our budget falls within this category of services, these discretionary services?

Yeah, because the school, right. Well, actually, on the other one, mandated slide, so on this discretionary slide, school operations technically should be on this slide. Okay.

Sure, right, and just as I'm answering that question, all of the school, Wake County Public School operating expenses and teacher salaries should technically be on this and be part of that percentage of discretionary. Just another thing for next time. Yep, yep, yep.

Yeah, we definitely have a lot to, and then my last question is about user fees and revenue generation. It feels like... the gaps are so large, similar to when we were talking about the private sector contributing. I know there's a lot that we would need to consider and calculate there, but that is just the one area that would cause expenses for our residents, for all of us, to go up.

Yeah, and how much could that even fill the gap? I'm just kind of processing that one out loud. No questions there, but I'll be particularly interested to see how that part of the conversation evolves and what role that could even play given the gaps are so large. Yeah, right, exactly. Well, we wouldn't want it to be that much.

Well, thank you. We're ready for the conversation. I don't have anything else. Thank you.

No, it's actually the opposite. A recurring time slot is more consistent, but mixing it up is less consistent. It's my preference to not have a recurring time slot because I like to hear from various people commissioners and be teamed up differently. That's my preference.

that I think similarly I would not prefer a reoccurring time slot I think that it's important to be able to hear from different colleagues at different times also with two new commissioners it gives us an opportunity to get to know them and the way they think it gives them an opportunity to get to know us and the way we approach things so I would not like to see a reoccurring I also think with the vice chair and the chair I think having them in different sessions could be helpful. They can talk after the agenda reviews, but you get one person in leadership at the 11 and then at the 12, so I pr

I would prefer a consistent time slot. It just makes it easier to plan, particularly for those that may have outside employment. Having a regular time is beneficial. And I do see the value in making sure that our new commissioners are in different sessions to help acclimate them to the process.

Yeah, I think having the chair and the vice chair in different sessions I think is beneficial.

Yes, I think Commissioner Thomas and I are very aligned on everything. I just block out Monday, so I don't need a consistent time frame. I think the chair and vice chair should be in different sessions. I think the newest commissioner should be in different sessions, and I think it's up to the chair and the vice chair to count votes and move us forward if we need to do that.

Ditto. I only answered the first question, so I can come back and answer the others.

I did say I didn't want a recurring time slot because I wanted to mix with different commissioners. I do like the idea of having the chair and vice chair in different ones, and I definitely think we want to break up the newer commissioners as much as possible. but like i said if we're not everybody stuck in the same one i think that allows more flexibility and i will remind everyone and this is not to be foreboding it could be three new commissioners and not just two so we have to keep that in mind as well um and of course um how will the chair or vice chair count support for agenda placement

I was just gonna ask, and Ben, I asked you this last year. I'd love to see the list of how you did the rotation. I'd like to see how you do the rotation before you start sending out the calendar requests.

Explain to me how it would delay it a little bit.

I'm not asking to have input. I'm just asking to see it. I'm not asking to change it.

And Commissioner Waters, with your wanting a consistent time, right? I think we could give, and all of us said that we were flexible, so maybe we keep you consistent in that time and then rotate everyone else around that.

I say the same. If we can support Commissioner Waters' needs as much as we can, I would be for that as well.

The opportunity to be in the one with the chair. So everybody rotates.

Is there a reason, Ben, you were thinking not to put them in the 12 that we weren't thinking about?

We just want to make sure we didn't overlook something. Right.

I just want to reshare something that was stated before. I want to acknowledge that this is asking staff to be in three hours of meetings straight, which, I mean, we do often, but I'm assuming there was no other way to give a break in between instead of these back-to-back meetings.

And we did talk about, you know, David had talked about rotating the deputies through the agenda reviews and not every deputy being in every one or not him being in every one. So we talked about staff and how they could rotate as well.

Well, good. I just appreciate as much as we're thinking about how we're shifting just the impact on staff too, so. Thank you for reminding. I forgot about the deputies swapping too, but.

I would love, in theory, to be able to do that, but it kind of depends on the topics that we're going to be discussing as to which deputy we need in the meeting.

okay and i'm just wondering if our goal should be to try to do them is for 50 minutes just to give a little bio breaks you know thinking like the therapist in there you say an hour but you try to do it for 50 minutes you know maybe yeah just like that the goal maybe i love the way you're thinking yeah we can't get a little long winded at a time so i i i appreciate that but um

I just had a question on the slide that's marked 2027 changes, the bullet point that we'll use time for some small group updates. Can you clarify what that means again?

Thank you. And one other question on this. For consent agenda items, you're just going to allow for questions. But regular agenda, you'll still go through those items? Is that the plan?

Thank you. I appreciate you saying, Ben, about the discretion. And thank you, Commissioner Waters, for asking the question. I hadn't got to this slide yet in this discussion. I think that I don't have a problem with discretion. I brought it up in one of the most recent agenda reviews that I was in that I just don't want it to replace the opportunity for small groups because we only have 50 minutes. 50 minutes. And so if we're not, I don't want to rush through the agenda or think that because there is an update that happened recently in an agenda review. And I was like, well, if we didn't have

I think in theory it sounds good, and whenever it can work out and it's a brief update, yeah, I'm fine with it. but I do think we're already going to be kind of constrained to this hour in a way that we haven't been before. Most of the times that's not a problem. There are some times when they run longer than an hour just with getting through the agenda. Um, and so I just have a little concern about how often it'll really be practical for us to get through. If it's just some brief update about something, I think it'll be fine. But, um, We'll have to use judgment. In theory, it sounds good, but

I just had a passing thought. I know that as we are exploring appropriate use of AI and the clerk's team to help with our minutes, I'm just thinking about how we might be able to use that tool and technology to help facilitate some of this. So just a passing thought.

Can I ask a clarifying question on that sheet? Option B says four committees, but then in the third column it lists three committees. So is Great Government Committee of the Whole the fourth committee, or is something not showing up there the way you intended?

Anyway, as you could ponder that, I would like to throw out that I don't think these are our only options. A couple of things I mentioned last time is there's not a given that every committee has to have three meetings a year, so we can talk about whether or not we have less meetings per committee as well. But anyway, I just wanted to ask that clarifying question before we started looking at the options.

okay any other comments yeah question too what caught my eye on option a was the net reduction of meetings but yet when we first talked about it but then am i also correct and that means pretty much all work sessions it would be in the format of of work sessions is that correct And then our Mondays, our fourth Mondays would be taken away as options. So I've given that some thought. So I'm not so sure I support that anymore. Because I heard a lot of appreciation last time, I thought, from other colleagues that the virtual options really were helpful to members. And so I wanted to, I'm just sort

No, Option A, there was some advocacy around that one because of the growing board and the opportunity to be in person and to have those strong conversations that we often... aren't able to have because of our different schedules and not being in person as frequently. That was a big selling point for me, just to being in the same room and space more frequently. But I would say if that is the route, I'm still interested and I don't think we ever came to a resolution in our retreats and other meetings about how something ends up on a work session. So that would be something I would hope that we

I have comments. But I think your last point that you made is relevant because I think we just have a lot of things to think through about when something is automatically committee meeting material versus when it might just be work session material. I think there's different ways we can go on this. I'm not in favor necessarily of just adding a whole bunch of new in-person work sessions. If we look more strategically at what's on the given work sessions that we already have and whether or not some of those discussions can replace committees, I'm open to that in some instances. For example, I al

Okay, so bear with me. I have made lots of notes about this. I actually have several advantages of keeping committees. The first one is more flexibility for commissioners with demanding schedules. Committees allow commissioners to focus on their assigned responsibilities while participating in other committees when a subject is particularly relevant. So like Commissioner Evans just said, you can pop into a virtual meeting if there's something on the agenda, even though you're not part of the committee, but you don't have the obligation to be on that committee. So virtual meetings also reduce t

I said I've been thinking about it. I've had a month or two.

I mean, I fully understand and hear Commissioner Thomas makes a strong argument for committees. I do understand the impact of needing to come to this building another time for option A. I personally find that valuable. I think where I am now is, given my experience, I don't see much difference between the conversations happening at committee meetings and the conversations happening at work sessions. To me, they, I mean, and maybe you gave a good example, Commissioner Evans, about housing. So I think honestly where I am is we should probably do more to distinguish what conversations come to wor

But wait, Commissioner Evans had a question for me. Oh, y'all, you. Yes, like being in a room and seeing and talking. No, no, no, y'all are my people. Well, I just want to say Commissioner Adamson has text and she wants option A.

In terms of our existing committee meetings, is there a sense of how frequently outside folks join those committee meetings? Yes. No, no, I mean the public. Yeah, the public joining those meetings. And I just say that, you know, as a point for the work session, because particularly when there's a topic that is of great interest, unlike today, you'll see a lot of people coming in to... Thank you, thank you, thank you. Coming in to, you know, show their opinion around that topic. And I'm still... having a hard time seeing how keeping the committees gives you more time because particularly if the

Chairman, may I respond really quickly just to Tara's question, Commissioner Waters' question? You mentioned how often folks watch committees, and I think that comms can tell you there have been lots of times when the news reporters will do a story and broadcast our committee Jeopardy squares because they are watching as opposed to sometimes they will come here. But people watch our committees, and they will cut pieces out of that for news stories or whatever. for other presentations just like they will here or at a board meeting so i think it's it's very similar you just can't see them um tha

Well, thank you. That's helpful to know. I'd just be curious to see some of the stats on what that looks like, because I know that sometimes the same thing happens in work sessions, or any of our meetings. They clip any portion of it. May not get the best shot of you, but they certainly do clip any of our meetings.

I'm still sort of waffling between the two. I heard Commissioner Thomas talking about committee meetings give us maybe more opportunity for dialogue between people on the call, whether it be non-profit partners and stakeholders, although we do have some community partners who do speak at our work sessions, so we do have some of that. If we stuck with option C, which is the least amount of change, which would keep the committees as they are, we'd have two additional meetings as the great government would be the add-on. Would the number of work sessions stay the same? Would the prediction be abo

And because we will be having three agenda review meetings too on Mondays, on those every other Mondays, right? And so that's going to cut into our ability to have some committee meetings on Mondays, right?

Having committee meetings on the days we have agenda review, because even with them starting at 11, that was kind of hard to accomplish, if I'm not mistaken. But anyway, it's something to look at, something to look at.

Right. A process question, I think Commissioner Waters was alluding to this in terms of, you know, help me understand, a lot of things that go to work sessions, what percentage of those topics have been through a committee, typically? Okay.

Do most items that go to a work session have been vetted back in the committee, at the committee level? Would you say most items that are on a work session have been discussed at a committee? What percentage would we say? Anybody?

Right, and that's my thinking, too. It just gives us opportunity to listen and ask questions, think about it, give us time to sort of reflect on whatever that issue is that goes through that process.

I do. So two things. One, when we talk about times for committees, it is not set in stone that you have to start a committee meeting at 10 or at 1 or whatever the time is. And I ask the question, I know Michael James and I, as a committee chair, I've had the option to say these are the dates that actually work for me as a chair, talk with the other members of my committee, and does the time, 10 or 11 or 12 or 1, work for me? So as a committee chair, you get to determine. It's not set in stone that you must have a 10 o'clock committee meeting. Is that not correct? It does have to fit into the s

So again, the committee chair has the discretion to not have a meeting at 10 o'clock if that's their... As long as there's other slots available.

Right, okay. And then I have just one other comment. One of the things, and please take this in the spirit that it is intended, it is not easy to chair this board. And one of the things that I think being a committee chair does is it gives you practical experience managing meetings, facilitating discussions, shaping the agendas, developing recommendations, and working with staff. And I think that's really important as new commissioners come and join the board. Committee structures create opportunity to develop leadership experience beyond just the chair and the vice chair. And speaking as one

At one of our retreats, I forget which one, there was, you know, energy around having more formalized processes around how something does get to a work session. So at the appropriate time, whether that's at the next work session or some point, or I mean at a retreat, I'd love to revisit that and really firm up what it is. looks like to get something on the work session. I think that was a plan of discussion that we had had. And then for the work session or the committee meetings, typically, well, not always, but since there are often two committee meetings and then sometimes a regular meeting

And I think Emily was chiming in, but you can.

Yes, and even on October the 5th, we had Health and Human Services and then also the Affordable Housing Committee. It was a busy day. It was a very busy day.

And then another question around something going from a committee to a work session. If there's discussion within that committee around a particular topic, then is it left just to the committee members to then help navigate what the next steps are as opposed to like a work session where everybody's there, you get a thumbs up on what the direction or how to move forward on something that has a next step.

Which would... give me pause because of different, you know, being a full board of at this, at that point next year, being nine, then only a small fraction of the whole board deciding sort of the next step. If there's not also another process, because I know Commissioner Jackson or Vice Chair Jackson and I had, you know, advocated for a long time to have work session topic around the arts plan and so just kind of understanding what that process and I think we had three we're trying to get you know a fourth person to help move that along but if something is in committee it only takes three I th

But that has been kind of the challenge of navigating how that happens. I haven't found success in understanding what the trigger is to get something into a work session.

And just also thinking about not everything fits neatly into one of the current committee, categories again with the arts trying to figure out where that fit in and trying to help navigate where that moved along and or even with discussions around libraries when you know that was you know a topic trying to decide you know what the process is has has not been as clear to me on what gets to a work session and how especially when it didn't originate in a committee right

Which doesn't always happen. But, yeah, so, okay. Thank you.

I... We don't have to make this decision today. That's a question statement. I don't believe we have to make the statement today, but we do need to move forward in order to set the plan for next year, so I get that. I am actually wrestling with a number of questions and feel like I need more information. The idea that the question between the purpose of a committee and the topics of a committee versus a work session, I would like to just have a moment for us to reflect on how much of that is theory versus practice. If we were to look back at the year of this year where we actually doing explor

Some of my comments are very interrelated to your thinking, but I also want to back up first of all and say that I do hear Commissioner Waters' concerns about just a need to shore up how things get in these different buckets, and I'm not sure that we have been observing the process as it was originally, or as it was envisioned a few years ago, because I also know that when we came up with a preliminary draft work process flow, and we decided about, and I absolutely agree with Manager Ellis that we do not want anything that's going to be voted on that is policy or anything like that to first be

Yeah, my recall is that it's because we were trying to fit in great government, and that seemed to be shaking up the schedule of time and availability and the number of people. Okay. That's my recall.

And I thought part of it might have been because, you know, not everybody will get to chair a committee, but I don't really think that should be the most important thing. I mean, it's not a given issue. Anyway, so I'm just asking us to sort of think about what exactly is the problem we're trying to solve, and does it have to be A, B, or C?

I'm happy to let Ben answer that question, but I thought it was because essentially we're going to nine commissioners, and we've got to figure out how many commissioners are going to be on a committee, how many people are going to get to chair a committee or not. We are trying to prepare for nine commissioners, so that is why we started the discussion in the first place, but I will defer to Ben.

I mean, yeah, we can have four people on a committee instead of three. So I don't see that as an issue. And if it's just a matter of we don't have a committee for everybody to chair, I'm more than happy to not chair a committee. Same, so there, so there. And if the new folks want a committee, have at it. So I'm just throwing that out there to say, before we beat this thing to death, are we sure that our current scenario is not working?

So just a couple of things. One, yes, I agree with Commissioner Evans. I do not have to chair a committee. And I know that those are decisions that are made as far as committee assignments. Those are conversations that happen over the holiday. And so to that, I wanted to respond to what Commissioner Jackson said. And while I appreciate all of the questions and I appreciate that it takes time sometimes a little longer to, we get more questions as we have discussion, right, we get more questions and then we want answers to those, but I do not agree that we don't have to make some decision today

It was a question. But if we have to make a decision, I'm prepared. always to make a decision.

I'm just putting that out there for those of us contemplating not making a decision. I know the discussion is getting long, but also I'm looking at the timeline and being mindful of staff because staff has to come up with some sort of schedule and agenda and all the things, and then the leadership team that takes... Over in December on the 7th, we'll have to talk to the new commissioners, talk to all of us, and really work over the holidays to figure out which regional boards we're assigned to and which committee assignments. So I'm just asking the question that if we don't make a decision tod

Sounds like we need to give guidance today.

Well, it sounds like there's that energy for the option that I'm most interested in, but I would still like to make an appeal, and I appreciate Commissioner Evans highlighting some of the practices that are available to commissioners. So particularly as we are welcoming our new commissioners, if there is an opportunity for commissioners a work session topic early in their tenure to talk about those things. I know there's the orientation where those things come up in the orientation, but collectively to have some discussion around the path, the options as a collective group outside of their ind

Yeah, I just wanna say if we're gonna be moving forward with making decisions and providing guidance today, the things that I request I believe are still valid. I think we should be reflective and look back on this past year and see if we used committees as they are intended to in theory. I would request that we just take a look at that so that as we move forward, we can all be clear about the scope of committees. And I think that that would also give us an opportunity to really revisit, well, They're all great committees, but my favorite one, housing. It would give us an opportunity to think

I wanted to say that it's only your favorite committee because you weren't here when we had arts and culture as a committee. Touche.

I want to share one other thing for context since I've been here a little bit longer. But 10 years ago, we had no committees and very few work sessions. So I'm carrying the mantle for Dr. West. So that's just to say, let's just don't be locked in. There's a lot of space there. Agreed.

I was going to say, I would like to just offer that we at least decide that we want committees or work sessions, and then we can do some of the other nuanced things. And I say that because again, we're talking about, we all can agree that we need to understand better how things move to the agenda for a regular meeting and what happens in committee versus what happens in work sessions. and how policy moves forward versus updates and procedural things. And so I think that that is a broader discussion and I'd love to have that discussion in November on the work session on the 8th so that we know

I want to clarify, why is B out? I'm not advocating. I just didn't know when we decided that it was one or the other. Did you say something?

Yeah, I can go next. I... The more we've had this conversation, the more I feel like A is a false narrative, false option, because technically just replacing committees with work sessions is like assuming that their purposes are the same. And so because we haven't worked that out, and in theory these things are different, option A doesn't seem like we can just replace a work committee with a work session. So I'm gonna go for let's see Option C, let's see the plan for option C and do the reflection to determine if we're actually carrying five committees into the next year based on our stated pu

I also didn't understand how B got out if there's an increase of meetings with C and folks were looking to have fewer meetings. But I think either way I am outnumbered with option A. But I appreciate Commissioner Tawas stating perhaps of the November meeting having more discussion around these issues. processes, that is, if that can happen, that would be very beneficial to me because it's important to me to clarify these processes.

Between A and C, I vote for C. I'm flexible, but I think we need to maintain some amount of committees.

And Ben, will we see, there was a, the regional boards, will we, I saw there was a document that showed like when all of those meet, like for example, OSAPAC meets on Mondays. And so that will be taken into consideration as we do the schedule as well.

I mean, that's not a meeting for everyone, but we are assigned to regional boards, and that was one of the other things about adding another mandatory meeting for us to be at.

Those are the only two advisory boards that we know of that meet on Mondays?

That wasn't a request, it was just a question.

Can we get a sense of whether folks are interested in having those topics come back in November for clarification around some policies? Which particular topics? Yeah, workflow.

I would love to see workflow come back. If it is possible, David, I don't, to Ben, if it's possible to turn it around between now and the November 8th work session to have a workflow conversation so that we can understand.

Yes, I'm in favor of that. And my request, and I guess we should see, do our other peers, sound like there's interest in having that reflection. The reflection, that can be in writing, just kind of a sample of how true are we to keeping committee meetings in the way that David described and their intentional, their original purpose. Because, yeah, like even in all the time of chairing and being on the housing committee, what has happened in practice hasn't lined up with what was shared in theory. And to me, that will, should influence what committees we take into the new year, or at least what

And I'll say, and how often they need to meet. You know, we need to flush out what it is we expect to accomplish in the committee meetings, and that's part of that decision. Is there going to be so many policy things that we've got to have several meetings a year, or maybe not. Right.

And I think that goes back to, for me, the leadership development point that I was making, right? Because as a committee chair, because of my committee in economic development, like Michael James has brought things forward that did have to come to the work session that then did have to go to a meeting. And so it has followed and been a policy process. from committees, but that's also depending on what's happening in the world, right? There are things I know that Cheryl has had to do a lot more health and human service updates because of HR1 and because of Medicaid more so than she's been able

Yeah, purpose of committees, purpose of workflow. What can we learn from the last year to help inform the next year? Oh, yeah.

Okay, yeah, here's the very specific question. We were told that committees were intended to be spaces for policy discussion on their way to a work session and then the board. that it was procedurally the first step for conversations. Work session, committee, board meeting, policy. My question is, how much has that played out in practice? Is that more theoretical, our intention for work sessions? My experience is that our main committees, my experience is that there are a lot of updates in committees, which are great. I mean, there's no dig on that. I'm really trying to... understand how much

And I would beg to say, I'm not sure that how it actually played out this year or last year is as, relevant is how do we want it to play out in the future. And that's what we need to figure out at the next work session. What makes sense? What is going to be the most effective way to hear information, to think about potential policy changes? And as I recall from the workflow process, it was either or. Certain things could come through a committee. Certain things could come directly to a work session. I suspect if we looked at the data for the last two years, most policy things have probably kin

And I think this is particularly relevant for option A, because when it says just swap out committees and create work sessions, then that assumes that all of it, policy, updates, anything, could come to a work session.

I agree with Commissioner Evans, but I would ask for the two years, and I'm not to... Single you out, but Cheryl's had a really interesting year this year with the federal impacts and Medicaid and all of those things, as opposed to a previous year that she has chaired, she was able to do a lot more health and human service plans and a lot more health and human service policy. And so while it is up to the chair, sometimes the things that are happening at the state and federal level really do dictate that it has to be more update than policy.

Okay. I have some policy, but it's out of my scope.

that I would love to shape policy on SNAP and Medicaid, but I'm just out of that loop.

Ben, I just have a question about on the federal priorities. Can you tell me a little bit more about the unfunded mandates that are created by the OMB grant regulations?

Are there other options for any of the top three for federal priorities?

Okay. And then the one other thing I would say just right now is that for that state roundtable, just because there are so many more members of the state delegation than there are in the federal delegation, and it's a little bit closer, I would love to, host that over at NCACC in their larger conference area than trying to pack all those people into this room. Just offering thanks.

It's closer for them to walk to as well.

Just a clarifying question on the state priorities. I appreciate definitely having the Medicaid incorporated with SNAP under the HR1 impacts. I think that's really important. And I wanted to get clarification with the judicial system resources with the second bullet point. That includes, I'm assuming, when people are in county jails, it should be in the state prison system. Is that trying to address potentially that issue and also adequately funding the DA's office? Would that be included for advocacy in that bullet as well?

I was just going to ask, based on the information that Michelle gave us earlier, thinking about some of the operational impacts and cuts, was there any, and I know we talked about this already in August, and this is bringing that information back, but were there any changes that staff would have recommended or anything added to the opportunity list based on what we're looking at, since this is for just next year, or next two years, but is there anything from the perspective of the budget impacts that we would add differently to this or that staff would recommend adding differently to this. I k

Yes. My reflection at this time, I support priorities one and two, because those are threats to our revenue, like full stop, and our conversation should be to protect our revenue. The third option, I recall that being recommended and us discussing how it got there, but it's hard for me to see judicial system resources without also seeing foster care resources and public school resources. and I know we have to be one page, I know we have to focus on our priorities, but if the first two columns are threats to and put pressure on our revenue, and this third one are the things that our resources a

Okay, that's really helpful context. By the way, NCACC also has some justice and public safety goals that are aligned with this as well. So if that's our thinking, then I just want to acknowledge that their advocate, I mean, this is another Hunter County issue as well. So not to negate what you're saying, but to add and say that we are bringing forward these legislative priorities as well. But I appreciate the guidance as being like, that's always front of mind and in the name of prioritizing, it's always front, but these are our priorities moving forward in this year, and I just think that's

Yeah, I was going to weigh on that same topic. Of course, it's always difficult for me when we don't have support for our public education system in our top three for the reasons that you stated. But we've talked about this a number of different times, and it's a hard one. But I think it kind of comes back to, when I think about it, like what we've had to do with these judicial resources, the fact that we're having to pay more staff know more county staff because the arenas law because we're having to hold more people in our jails because of the state's lack of ability to do so that is really

I was just gonna briefly weigh in on the NCACC. We had our legislative goals conference last week and myself and Commissioner, Vice Chair Jackson were there and I was really pleased. We'll see what kind of feedback you hear. The board of directors are meeting this week or next week? This week. And we and our commissioner chairperson from Mecklenburg were really vocal about urban counties and I think we got inclusive language on almost everything. There was one on economic development for distressed rural counties that was sort of left, let go. But for everything else, we were very intentional

Thank you for that. I was gonna add that the NCACC has been doing a lot of the work around education and I think that we have, choose my words, We have experienced not favorable outcomes, and so when we have a one pager that we try to use the general guidance, but also advocate with the power of 100 counties, we don't seem to get favorable responses just as one county, though we are the largest county. And so that's one of the reasons that I would think that it wasn't in the top three. And I don't think that we'll talk about the legislative goals as a board this weekend. We will weigh in when

I'd be happy to do it, but I haven't heard any discussion.

Right. I mean, the three of us will definitely be there. Susan said she'll be there.

Well, Susan just said she would do it. Does anybody else want to be the voting delegate?

I just didn't know if somebody on the board should be doing it. If they should, then good. If it needs to be somebody other than that, then good.

You know what I'm saying? Somebody that was on the committee, I didn't know if it was better for us just to be another person, but I'm fine if you all want to.

It doesn't matter to me. I will be there, though, as well. I'll be there as well.

I don't have to do it. I'm willing to do it. I've done it once before.

My question is not related to that so much. It's just to say that at the Legislative Goal Conference, there was a strong theme on 100 counties, you know, just making sure that the goals were relevant to all 100 counties. Yeah. and I will be there if we need to speak. I'll be wanting, and I'm sure you will too, to just continue to lift that up in the goals that we do approve.

Yes. I have a question. Go ahead. Just on this topic of NCACC, that first question, I know we kind of skipped. I forgot what we were talking about. Oh, we were just talking about the three priorities And we'll go back to formally acknowledging those. But to this question about if NCACC draft goals do not capture our priorities, I believe that they absolutely do, without a doubt, including the third around judicial resources. And I want to just read the language as it was voted on coming out of legislative committee. It says support recurring state funding to assist counties with the operationa

And you're asking that for state and federal at the same time?

I'm definitely, I'm fine with state. I have a question about federal.

A state fund for farmland preservation, Ashley, right?

So for this opportunity list, okay, just bear with me, y'all. Just one more question, and I'm good if we wanna just move forward. I understand we have sustained and increased funding for public schools and community college as part of general guidance. One of the most popular legislative requests and discussions in education was to restore the lottery funding to its original levels, or more, minimally. So I would like us to consider adding that as a specific opportunity list in alignment with our NCACC partners now. The final legislative priorities haven't been approved but it was very popular

Did you drill it down to? Yes. Because there were some people that were talking about restoring the original percentage of revenue. There were some that were talking about. the percentage of what's left over that goes to the counties, and it's more than restoring. We want it better than it used to be, ever was.

Yeah, we have very specific language. We listed the statute. I don't have it right here to pull up in this split second, but I can get it. I mean, I can pull it up, but we did have very specific statute language named in the ask and a very specific percentage to the original stated. I think it was 35%. but I can get the very specific language if there is interest in even considering this. I'm putting an idea out there for discussion, and if there is interest in aligning in this way, I can get that specific language.

I would offer, but first I guess let me ask Ben, is there an opportunity for us to add something like that to the opportunity list after legislative goals in November? I know you're doing the one pager, but the one pager only has the top three. And I ask that question because my experience in legislative goals is, just like you talked about very specific language, that there is a lot of wordsmithing that is about to happen. over these next two days from all kinds of counties. And even though they came through committee and they did well, you get to legislative goals and stuff dies. I mean, it

Perhaps a winter work session? See what really becomes the top priorities.

Just to add to Vice Chair, the original legislation was 38% of the enabling legislation was 38% of the original funds. And there is the general statute is listed as well. To restore lottery funds to 38%. Seek legislation to restore lottery funds to the 38% match as was written in the original enabling legislation from the General Assembly. That's how it's written.

Because I think now it's about 16% is what we're getting.

See, I'm telling you, there's two different things, and that doesn't clarify for me whether we're talking... or the percent of the net proceeds after they've paid out all their people's winnings. There's two different, and I don't know what we're referring to there. That's why I was asking for clarification. So I would agree. It's not that I don't like the concept. We need to flush it out, and let's wait and see if it's something that really bubbles to the top with the NCACC would be my suggestion as well.

Well, we have the specific legislation, the statute number. So it would be what's stated in this particular statute if you want to read it just for the record.

It's GS-18C-162. I have that written, but I don't know exactly what the details are. So we can get that.

And again, Ben did say that he would, and I guess with Susan being the voting delegate, look at what the draft language says and see if there's any specific things that we might want to offer in that. So that will happen before the 19th, 18th, whatever day that's happening as well. So we still have that opportunity. Again, lots of wordsmithing to be happening.

Yeah, and I think it is, I mean, particularly for this to be our opportunity list, I would like to see us settle on an opportunity list that is aligned with our state partners. I can't imagine there'll be much difference, but that crosswalk, I think, is an important thing to do before we finalize this. Thank you for having that paper ready, Commissioner Stallings.

Finalizing, not necessarily expanding. Something could fall off.

Adding something around education funding for the lottery.

And I didn't mean to say, like Commissioner Jackson just clarified, like not adding stuff to the opportunity list, but adding something specific around education after we had some more language from the NCACC, but not a free-for-all later.

I have a question, but Commissioner Waters can go.

I just wondered, just a quick question on the opportunity list for the federal. Have we heard any anticipated cuts or changes to WIOA funding?

Is that from the big beautiful bill cuts?

Okay, thank you. I think that's an important one to keep an eye on, particularly as we are seeing concerns about employment increasing, particularly among certain demographics.

One very minor tweak to the last one, rights for persons with disabilities. I wonder if we could do rights and resources because there have been a number of cuts that impact the disability community from Medicaid that have potential to decrease the ability for persons to remain in their communities and in their homes. So I would advocate for making it rights and resources a matter of change. Happy to support that.

Going back to our federal priorities, Roger, can you give us, what is the latest on the OSBM program? I know you asked a question similar to this because I thought it was delayed, it was open for comment period, the OMB grant regulations. Where is it in the process?

Yeah, so I just want to acknowledge that because of the big pushback and it's in a holding pattern, I don't know if it's important and it's critical and we don't need it to pass. And if it does, it would have deleterious effects. So that's just period. it may fall off naturally. So I just want to like asterisk that because it may not be something that needs to be a part of our top priorities given the national push and the fact that it's in a holding pattern.

Okay, cool. I would ask if that does happen, I would love to have guidance from Jennifer about our opportunity list because then she will know what is coming down the pipe about maybe something that we would add as the third thing.